Liberals:
Finally, Democrats stopped with the crazy talk and the violent rhetoric. Just kidding.
Democrat Rep Jim Moran: “It [Republican victories in November] happened … for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn’t want to see a president who was opposed to slavery. In this case a lot of people in this country, it’s my belief, don’t want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that’s a basic philosophical clash.”
Belknap Democratic Chair Ed Mallard, speaking of Republicans: “They’re going to hang themselves. And we’re going to help them.”
MSNBC Vice President Bill Wolff: “MSNBC does not have a political agenda. The idea that we’re beholden to one side or the other is ridiculous.”
Charles Schumer: “The fact that five senators are for privatizing Social Security shows we’re not crying wolf here. This is a serious movement to undo the most successful government program of the 20th century.”
Danny Glover: “Think about that violence now in relationship to what has happened in Tucson. You know, even though we know that this young man is just deranged in some way, there’s the side that drove him to that act, with the kind of vitriol, the kind of nasty, just villainous violence that is happening. The violence that happened even during, you know, town hall meetings.during the healthcare crisis, the healthcare debate and everything, all this kind of violence. Then you take, again, that, the war, the wars-King talks about that, how that violence-that violence comes home. That violence comes home to haunt us.”
Nancy Pelosi: “President Obama was a job creator from day one.”
Pelosi, with regards to Obama being in the middle: “I think that’s where he’s always been.”
Van Jones: “Here’s how you know if you live in a society where there’s social justice: Would you be willing to take your life . . . write it on a card, throw it in a big pot with everybody else . . . reach in at random and pull out another life with total confidence that it would be a good life?”
Chris Matthews, who regularly beats up on both Palin and Bachmann for supposed in accuracies of quotes he has pulled out of context: “We’re looking at the map of the world right now and where Egypt sits in the world. It’s so strategically located. It has, of course, the Nile River. It has, of course, the Panama Canal.”
Sen. Tom Harkin: “If the people elect these crazy TEA party people, and they come in here and they vote to do all these wacko things, I say, give ‘em rope; give them a lot of rope, then the American people will find out and we will have a real election the next time around.”
President Obama: “Combat operations in Afghanistan have ended.”
Chris Matthews on Michele Bachmann’s TEA party response and why her doing it is a bad idea: “don’t know what to make that. that’s balloon head. we treated slaves as three-fifths of a person. it went to the civil war. we had compromise after compromise to avoid a war. we went to war. slavery continued through the 1860s and only ended because of that war. here’s this woman that you made your spokesperson saying that somehow the founding fathers dealt with it. that’s the one thing they did not deal with. that was the horrible compromise that was at the heart of our constitution. why do you put someone like this forward who is a balloon head? who knows no american history. it’s a ridiculous decision you guys have made. do you know how little this woman knows our history?” By the way, any person who says slaves were treated as three-fifths of a person in the constitution does not know anything about constitutional history. Matthews calls her a balloon-head at least 3 times in this panel “discussion.”
Chris Matthews: “Leading off tonight: Unrest in Egypt. Proving the Iraq war wasn’t needed, these protests in Egypt, as well as in Yemen and Tunisia, are all aimed at dictators supported by the U.S. The demonstrations have not yet turned anti-American, but they could. These are the events the Bush administration hoped to encourage by lying about weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq. A live report from Richard Engel at the scene coming up. And we`ll stay on this story throughout the hour as events warrant.”
Charles Schumer: “We have 3 branches of government: we have a House, we have a Senate, we have a President; and all 3 of us are going to have to come together and give some.”
President Obama: “Health reform is part of deficit reform. We know that health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, are the biggest contributors to our long-term deficit. Nobody disputes this. And this law will slow these costs.”
Phone message left by unknown person for Maine GOP chairman Charlie Webster: “I wonder if Mr. Webster might survive a nine millimeter but doubtful he’d survive a 50 cal. There’s a lot of 50 cals in Maine. He should change his tune because a lot of people are really mad.”
Liberals from the past:
Joseph Stalin: “Life has become better, comrades, life has become merrier!”
Crosstalk:
Tom McClintock: “The two principle promises that were made in support of Obamacare were, (1) it would hold costs down; true or false?”
Chief actuary Richard Foster: [long pause; a nervous laugh, and then he says] “Um, I would say false, more so than true.”
McClintock: “The other promise that…if you like your plan, you can keep it; true or false?”
Foster: “Uh, not true in all cases.”
_______________________________________
CNSNews.com asked Academy Award-winning actor Richard Dreyfus the following: “MSNBC’s Ed Schultz said of, has said of Dick Cheney, `he’s an enemy of this country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is an enemy of this country. . Lord, take him to the promised land, will you?’ And there’s been other quotes, specifically in the media. I wanted to get your reaction to that specifically. Is that something that you think should be rejected by a civil society?”
Dreyfuss said, “No, that’s not uncivil. That’s actually kind of a beautifully phrased way of saying something that could be uncivil.”
Conservatives:
Rush Limbaugh: “Why are they granting these Obamacare waivers? I thought this law was a panacea. I thought the president said that if you like your health care coverage, you keep it… Is it only if you have a waiver?”
Sarah Palin on the SOTU address: “And his [Obama’s] theme last night in the Speaker of the House was the ‘WTF,’ you know, ‘Winning the Future.’ And I thought, ‘OK, that acronym, spot on.’ There were a lot of ‘WTF’ moments throughout that speech, namely, when he made the statement, Greta, that he believed that we can’t allow ourselves to, I guess, eventually become buried under a mountain of debt. That right there tells you he is so disconnected from reality!”
Dennis Miller: “What the hell was Al Sharpton even talking about? It sounded like Professor Irwin Corey explaining the infield fly rule. And, you know, he’s going to get carpal tunnel from flipping the race card on you that many times in one interview.”
Conservative at Luntz focus group, speaking about Obama’s SOTU: “I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Is he talking about cutting spending? Are you kidding me? All this guy’s done is, spend, spend, spend. In that clip he says we need to live within our means. What is he talking about?”
Rush: “I’m listening to all this Sputnik business from Obama and I’m thinking, ‘Wait, pal, aren’t you the guy that wanted to turn NASA into a Muslim outreach arm of the federal government?'”
Jim DeMint: The President will propose freezing spending at record high levels. Our debt crisis demands spending cuts, not a freeze. When a car speeds toward a cliff, you hit the brakes, not cruise control.”
From:
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview163.htm
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview163.pdf
UPDATE
We got ourselves a Digglanche….thats the reason for the spike in traffic and the dozens of moonbats parading around in the comments. Fun times!
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
HR, I know i still owe you an answer on post #197, but I just wanted to quickly jump in here, because i think Musicmangp is delivering this point in much more efficient and less contentious manner than perhaps I did. The “limited government/maximum freedom” sounds great in theory, but in practice i see little evidence of its existence in practical terms. Gay marriage is a such a great example, because marriage is almost universally thought of as being a good thing for society, and arbitrarily denying it to one group would seemingly go completely against that conservative creed I quoted above. So what principle is driving the organized anti-gay marriage crusade? Why would some propose to change the constitution itself to define marriage as being between a man and a women and therefore use government as a tool to deny certain individuals their freedom? And how would two individuals getting married have a negative impact upon a third person’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
Tom, I myself am not interested in re-defining anything.
When people say marriage is a plus for society I would say they mean between a man and a woman. Children are the future (blah, blah, blah) and research has shown a mother and father being present is usually optimal.
I question as to whether marriage is a right for non reproductive couples (due to being of the same gender). I definitely take exception to the behavior of those upset by people voting their opinion. If they want things changed try persuading people and not terrorizing them.
anticsrocks, hi SR, I think your comment is so weldone that nobody can challenge anything from it. thank you for that, YOU’r ONE of the many reason I love my blog , FA is full of smart classy people,
bye
musicmangp and TOM, check with CURT’s on 148 for LARRY’s post, to get another of your quest to learn more ofwhat you want to know,
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I read his post.
The arguments (and data provided) for making a distinction are irrelevant and prejudicial. I don’t care how many statistics you have, assigning their significance to 2 individual people based on the qualification that they are the same sex and wish to get married is prejudicial.
That being said, if civil unions were defined as “exactly the same as marriage, but allowing any 2 people, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation” I would be fine with it. I have a very hard time believing, seeing as how his entire point is that a distinction needs to be made, that the language would be so clear cut.
If you want a distinction in the language, there will be distinction in the law. The simplest, fastest, most efficient way to assure everyone is afforded the same privileges is to state, in plain language, that the states do not have the right to discriminate in any way based on the sexual orientation or gender of an individual.
musicmangd, hi, that’s exactly what LARRY was saying ,CIVIL UNIONS the same but not the word MARRIAGE, but the same priviledges, THAT’s what I read of this post,
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Just to be clear, Larry was advocating civil unions; my argument is that advocating civil unions is advocating discrimination.
musicmangd, what do you want me to say on that point, you’r free to think what you want , and the GAY
community are also free to want their unions reconnize, but they are marginal and they know it,
they are suffering for it too, so why should we add to their pains, just drop the subject and they will be happyer if the public leave them alone, until they find a resolution to that dilemma that we cannot
resolve ,as non GOVERNMENT expert and not in position of deciding,
@music: You said:
So just by being alive, we get certain rights? Okay, so if that is true, then define what a “right” is, please. And BTW, thank you for answering my questions. It is refreshing to actually have a conversation, rather than put up with talking points, obfuscation and lies.
@ilovebees – Thank you very much!
The cons keep saying that liberals want to tell them how to live, but of course it’s the conservatives who are doing that very thing to gay people.
And it is always the conservative who accuses someone who disagrees with him of treason or sedition.
Conservatives think they own this country.
ROUGY, where does your hate come from, not here for sure, then perhaps from the liberals,
stop your spitting bad words, it make you look so ugly
@rougy:
Yeah, roughy, you’re right………not!
Who added a $1 tax on tobbacco?
Democrats.
Who are taking soft drinks, cup cakes, snacks out of the schools?
Democrats.
Who want to control the web (think what happened last week in Egypt) ?
Democrats.
Who wants to tax sodas and even flavored waters?
Democrats.
Who eats FATTY Kobe Beef while trying to impose salt levels and even portion sizes on Americans?
Democrats.
Who wants to forbid the sale of BBQ coals while eating BBQ?
Democrats.
And all you care about are homosexuals?
Why?
Homosexuals live all over my city.
They have banners every gay month.
They have an annual Gay Parade here.
They can do whatever they want.
Free meds for AIDS.
A few advocacy centers and thrift shops.
But you know what?
I haven’t met even one happy gay person in all my years in Long Beach, CA.
Not one.
People make their own happiness.
@Nan G:
An increased tax on soda? You win. I can live with denying gay people equal rights, but I can’t live with marginally more expensive soda. Liberals are truly evil!
@Tom:
Oh, and I forgot the $.06/mile new tax on all electric cars (15,000/year = $90.00 tax)
Democrats.
Go to a lawyer and you can get every ”right” associated with marriage, if you want to without marriage.
I know people who have done this.
@
what if I’m old fashioned and just want a good old fashioned marriage?
Then find a person of the opposite sex. That is what a “good old fashioned marriage” constitutes.
@anticsrocks:
It’s amazing you’re offering same sex advice. considering you’re not gay (worrying about whether you are gay is considered pretty gay (by gay people (by the way)))
@Tom: I’m quite happy, thank you.
Oh! You meant gay as in homosexual. Nope, sorry. I firmly believe that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, but thanks for thinking of me. I am flattered. 😛
@musicmangp:
I wasn’t talking about organized prayer in public schools. I was responding to Tom’s accusation that “the right” was trying to control it. My response was similar to what you just said:
@Missy:
Prayer in school is under attack as numerous incidents have proven. Walk through the halls at your nearest HS or middle school, listen to the language that’s tolerated. Heaven forbid should a student utter a prayer, that’s to remain silent.
@alejo699:
No one is stopping you from doing the same thing. But follow your own advice. I do get transcripts or copy down exactly what people say from videotape. You can google any of these and get the entire quotation if you so desire.
Is there a problem with quoting what people actually say??
@Hard Right:
Hi, HR,
I think the problem here is, you cannot unring a bell. Alcohol will never be made illegal again.
I have the same concerns that you do about making drugs legal, and much of this is based upon that same point….once any drug is made legal, it will not be made illegal…simply because, you cannot unring a bell.
@Tom:
You have been given dozens of reasons here.
Let’s see if I can summarize one line of thinking:
Society has has the institution of marriage in essentially every single culture involving one man and one woman over the past 5000 years. Any deviation from this has been clearly a deviation.
Since marraige between one man and one woman has stood for this long without any need for it to be changed; that this institution often results in children and families; this institution provides a natural protection and provision for the woman and the chldren; and that a relationship between a man and a woman is unique–no male-male relationship is the same and no female-femaile relationship is the same; and children raised in the home with a male father and a female father are exposed to specifically one male father and one female mother. Furthermore, the act of infidelity can be one of most damaging things that one partner can do within the marriage. Let me add some things I don’t believe have been mentioned yet. It is not unusual for a man and a woman to both be virgins at marriage…it used to be more true 40 years ago, but it still occurs, and it is not as rare as people want you to think it is.
With a homoseuxal couple, they cannot produce children; there is no reason why the union specifically protects one person or the other; even children under a homosexual relationship are not exposed to the male father and the female mother; this is not an institution which is found in virtually every nation for all of human history; and since there is no premium placed upon fidelity….why is there any reason to call this a marriage. Oh, and no homoseuxal couple who have dedicated themselves to one another for life entered that relationship as a virgin and remained a virgin until they decided to make this a lifetime commitment. So, why not call such a union, oh, I don’t know, a domestic partnership? Why does it have to have the name “marriage” applied to it when there is very little in common between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage, apart from the fact that this involves 2 people? Since it is a unique sort of relationship, why not give it its own name?
@Gary – Wonderfully put.
@Tom:
Tom, if you are out here in CA, you can find a dozen churches that will take you though those motions.
I have even been to a few of these.
The only difference is that the statement that the minister usually adds a bout having the authority to do all this BY the state of California is left out.
Go, if you want to, what stops you?
Maybe because I turned him down?
lol, just kidding. That wasn’t meant as an insult, just having a bit of fun.
If I follow your logic, we should blindly honor tradition. So I assume you are against women working outside the home? How about women voting? You do realize you’re using one of the classic anti-suffragist arguments, don’t you? Well, at least you’re recycling. Sadly, you’re incapable of grasping the concept that things can be improved and that rights can be wronged.
And I hate to break the news to you, Gary, but most newly weds are hardly virgins.
Here’s an idea: Just admit you don’t like gay people and you don’t want to condone their lifestyle in any official manner. Seeing you come up with ridiculous reasons (like they’re not virgins when they get married!) is tiresome. It’s obviously all about punitive control over their lives because they don’t measure up to your Judeo-Christian ideal. Do you derive pleasure from punishing people you’ve likely never met? I am not saying you are one, but I’m pretty sure there are plenty of sadists in the anti-gay movement. Why they would care otherwise is beyond me.
@Hard Right:
HR, first I think you should look at what I just wrote to Gary for my feelings on this topic. Second, I don’t think all conservatives are like this, but certainly I don’t see very many liberals fighting against the rights of gay people. I can tell your heart is in the right place, so I ask you to consider being a conservative voice of reason when it comes to the question of gay marriage. There are many fine conservatives already there. Surveys show that young people are much more likely to be pro-gay rights, so this ship has pretty much sailed. Be on the right side of history. Don’t be be like others here, individuals who have written things under their name that 50 years from now people will think “I can’t believe anyone actually once felt like that”.
Why, when gay couples can get a civil union and have all the same rights as married couples, do they insist on forcing their views, wants, etc… onto a religious institution such as marriage?
Tom, why do you feel the need to have our Federal Government weigh in on this? First of all, it should be a states’ rights issue and secondly, the government needs to stay out of religion. I mean isn’t that what the left is always saying about the Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn? …the Ten Commandments in Town Hall? …prayer in school?
That is certainly a compelling argument. Can I assume you therefore disagree with the 1967 supreme court decision in Loving v. Virginia, which declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional?
Obviously we’re discussing legal recognition.
@Hard Right:
My problem with gay marriage is this: (1) It barely represents what a real marriage is and (2) gay marriage is not the end game. Once the term “marriage” is applied to a gay relationship, then we are going to see so many court cases and changes to our society, that our heads will spin. Pastors who teach what the Bible says about homosexuality will face suits because this will become hate speech. Homosexual unions will have to become in ingrainted part of education, going all the way down to kindergarterners. They will read stories with a family represented by a gay couple. Throughout grammar school, kids will be quizzed as to whether they are straight or gay. This has already occurred in other countries. In my opinion, part of the intent from many gays is to get younger kids involved in gay sex, to just check it out. When a child is 8 or 10, it is easy to confuse him about his sexuality.
This is an extreme evil and it will change our society in more ways than we can imagine.
@musicmangp:
Where in the constitution is being married a right? Where in the constitution is it a right to have a piece of paper defining whatever relationship you choose to have being classified by the federal government a marriage? And why does it have to be 2 people?
In every society for 5 or 6000 years of recorded human history, marriage has been between a man and a woman, and this allows protections for the woman and any children who become a part of this family. There is a premium placed upon fidelity where even the Bible allows for a divorce only in the case of adultery. In many states, adultery can determine fault when it comes to the disillusion of a marriage. None of these things related to a homosexual union, which is shorter in duration, does not protect the weaker member of the union, and does not protect children who are born to the couple. Furthermore, fidelity is barely a consideration to a homosexual couple.
Calling something a right does not make it a right. Cleverly manipulating language in such a way to call something a right, does not make it a right.
In the Delcaration of Independence, rights are few and innumerated. In liberaland, a right is anything a liberal can somehow twist into a phrase. There is no right to marriage and there is no right to call your non-marriage relationship a marriage.
@Tom:
The Bible speaks of women working outside of the homes and the Bible deals with the property rights of women, so the idea that these things have been traditional denied to women is ridiculous. It just means you know very little about human history.
Now, with regards to women voting, with the exception of 2 gals who post here, I could be persuaded about that one way or the other. You know that, remove the women from voting, and almost all of our presidents would have been conservatives.
I am looking at human civilization for marriage and family, which are fundamental institutions, even in communist and Muslim countries. You want to look back 50 or 60 years in the United States, and call that human history.
WHY does that relationship NEED to be call MARRIAGE??????? It isn’t. Call it by another name. Leave marriage to people who understand what a marriage really is. I will guarantee you, even if marriage was outlawed between men and women, or if the government decided not to recognize that word, there would be marriages between men and women. It is the natural way of things. There is nothing natural about homosexuality.
I don’t hate homosexuals, by the way, but I will admit, the practice grosses me out.
I’m not sure what the bible has to do with this. Are we talking about your personal religious beliefs, or the legal definition of marriage in the United States?
Gary, your rhetoric has drifted quite far away from what you wrote earlier on this thread, “On the far, far right, there is no government. Every man for himself. On the far right is libertarianism.” It seems like now you’re advocating laws based on your own personal religious interpretation of history. The bible is your litmus test? I’m starting to think you’re a fundamentalist Christian who yearns for an American Christian theocracy.
Do you realize your arguments against gay marriage line up almost perfectly with the arguments used in anti-miscegenation legislation:
Would you care to share where you land on that topic Gary?
Again, Gary, how do you square your ambivalence about womans’ voting rights with your alleged Conservative libertarianism? I have to wonder what century exactly you’d take this country back to, and how many civil liberties would be erased, if it were in your power to do so.
Because if it’s another name, it’s not marriage.
Please see above. Yes, I think we’ve seen this reason before.
Hilarious, Gary. Do you always spend so much time trying to force your religious beliefs upon people you don’t hate? You know, I bet there are people in power in some of the autocratic theocracies in the Middle East who share your viewpoint.
You know, Gary, I couldn’t have asked for more from you. Of your own volition, you’ve provided a perfect example of how libertarianism is just a Trojan horse for many conservatives who are actually quite interested in controlling how others’ live.
@Tom: You said:
No, you may not assume that I disagree with that decision. Why would I want any state to be able to pass a law that violates our Constitution? The states are allowed to set what they want the definition of marriage to be, but in doing so, they cannot violate the Constitution. That is only logical.
Tell me, did you even read the summary of that decision? I am betting you did not.
You also said:
So you are not in favor of the federal government mandating what the definition of marriage is? Great. Good first step there Tom.
@Tom: You said:
Again, why does the homosexual community feel the need to co-opt a religious institution? Civil Unions offer everything that gays are asking for, but yet it isn’t enough. Ever ask yourself why that is? I think it is more about tramping on the rights of others, rather than standing up for what they perceive to be their own trampled rights.
In fact, you touched upon this very idea when you said:
So it is okay for homosexuals to co-opt the religious institution of marriage, but not okay for people to be against it?
Talk about your double standards, there Tom.
Actually, I did. What you may assume was so clear cut was hardly so. The Supreme Court did not find that laws against inter-racial relations violated the 14 amendment in 1883. That decision remained unchallenged for forty years. Feelings and attitudes progress over time. I am hopefully optimistic they will continue to in the case of gay rights as well, despite some peoples’ best efforts.
Wow. Again, where is anyone talking about the religious institution of marriage? There is a civil and legal term “marriage” – that, and only that, are what we are discussing.
Would it be enough for you? You don’t think it would be a tad degrading to have to settle for a ‘separate but equal’ alternative? Do you think girls who grow up to be gay don’t dream about their wedding day too?
You feel that your rights are being tramped because gay people want to be married? How does that work? Furthermore, how does it even affect your life one iota?
TOM, you’r going to far with your comparisons on a multiple of them,
as you repeat,; !!!Do you think THIS, DO you think THAT, and the worse one of it!!! DO you think that girls growing up to be gay, want a wedding too; HEY what answer, are you trying to get out of the CONSERVATIVES on a public post in order to make trash out of it, but they see you coming, and you’r telling on yourself a lot more as you go
@bees – Thanks dear! 🙂 You are, as usual spot on in your observations.
@Tom: You said:
So there was no institution of marriage until the United States Federal Government came along?? There may well be a “civil and legal” term called marriage, but where pray tell do you suppose that term was derived from?
You said:
Let’s leave the straw men arguments out of this, okay?
You also said:
Okay, first of all, who in the blue hell said that my rights were being trampled? I sure didn’t. What I am saying is that the gay “rights” people are wanting foist their agenda upon the idea and institution of marriage that has been with mankind for thousands of years. They are saying that because they are different, they want to force the majority of folks to change something.
Come on, you are telling me that you don’t see how that is trying to take the right of the majority to have their religious ceremony their way? And don’t give me that crap about not arguing religion here. Marriage, as recognized by our state and federal governments is based on the religious institution from where it was derived. Freedom of religion was contrived to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. What you are advocating is for the government to stick it’s nose into something that it has no business (as per our Constitution) messing around with.
@Tom:
Just wanted to let you know that I haven’t forgotten about the conversation that we were having here.
I am currently corresponding directly with Dr. Xiridou so that she can provide clarification regarding exactly what her research did, and did not, entail.
@Tom:
Hey Tom….
Dr. Xiridou and I just finished our e-mail conversation regarding her research and the ACS.
I look forward to posting on this thread regarding her response sometime over the next couple of days.
@Aye:
I must admit, I was losing hope in ever hearing back from you. Two weeks? You will, I trust, forgive my lack of faith.
I am quite intrigued to see what you have. You have certainly put a lot of stock in this particular report, its author, and in the FRC as an organization capable of delivering a fair and accurate document adhering rigorously to the scientific method. With the stakes this high, obviously anything less won’t do.
I honor your initiative in reaching out to the good doctor and look forward to seeing the results. It goes without saying that nothing less than the complete unexpurgated version will be acceptable.
I need to refresh myself with the argument, the report “Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples” by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., the satellite documentation, and the contents of this thread. I wouldn’t come to a debate with you, Aye, anything less than 100% prepared.
Exit question: Would you happen to know what Dr. Dailey’s Ph.D is in? Psychology, I presume?
@Tom:
I was responding to one of your weird arguments. You said that if I believed in tradition, does that mean I believe that women cannot work outside of the home or have equal rights with men? So, I went to the Bible, one of the most ancient historical documents, which clearly gave property rights to women and recognized that women worked (for instance, the book of Ruth).
I have never claimed to be on the far, far right or a libertarian. I have claimed to be a fundamentalist Christian from time to time.
The idea that Christians desire an American Christian theocracy is absolutely silly. I think you would be hard pressed to find any mainline Christian denominations or organizations who have been petitioning for some sort of American Christian theocracy. However, if you google “Christian theocracy” you will find dozens and dozens of far left wackos who claim this is what believers in Jesus Christ want.
However, on the other hand, our founding fathers were primarily believers in Jesus Christ, when they discussed and debated the Bill of rights, the phrase “separation of church and state” was never used once; and, after writing the Bill of Rights, many of the founding fathers attended church the following Sunday in the House of Congress (which was where church was held for many years). So, many of us would much rather see a government closer to the vision of our founding fathers than as the vision of dishonest liberals.
You listed 4 arguments, and I have only used 1 of those arguments. Again, to the Bible: Moses married a Black woman, so, I would be hard-pressed to beleive in the Bible and yet argue against interracial marriage. Again, I quote the Bible to indicate that there is no reasonable Christian argument that can be raised against a normal male/female marriage between people of any race.
With regards to voting rights, I originally was a stupid liberal from California and I thought it was a great thing, the more people who voted. However, now, when people show up to vote, and many of them voted for Obama because Obama is cool and against McCain because McCain is old; and against Palin because they think she said, “I can see Russia from my house.” (which she did not say; Tina Fey said that). Given those political sensibilities, I am leaning in favor of some kind of a basic test in order to get the right to vote.
And, I fully realize that women will always have the right to vote from hereonin, and I do like women; so, what I said was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Calling a homosexual union a marriage does not make it a marriage. You know that you can have all of your friends call it a marriage, and that you can find a church where the pastor or priest or whatever will pronounce you man and husband (or whatever you want it to be called); so it is not a matter of calling this relationship a marriage that you are after. The end game is going after the children, which homosexuals are doing even today, under the guise of anti-bullying programs. If you get the government to call such a union a marriage–even if you might not be married for more than a few years and even though you both know you will never be sexually faithful to one another–but you are going to use this title as a legal club. Many of us know this. There are a lot of conservatives who don’t, who actually think that a homosexual relationship is just like a hetero one. However, I know better, and many people here know better. And we know, calling you and Harry a married couple is not the end game, any more than legalizing civil unions was the end game. The proclamation of a homosexual marriage is only step one in radically changing America. You will go after the bible as hate literature; you will go after pastors as spreading hate, and you will go after children, teaching them that homosexuality is normal and natural and say, “Hey, kid, maybe you are a homosexual. Only one way you can really find out…” Because a male homosexual wants a lot of partners; that is the end game. Lots and lots of partners. Get a child of age 8 or 10 to question his sexual orientation is exactly what you want. Personally, I don’t want any of these children even thinking about such things.
Nobody is controlling your life. And you can call whatever kind of a relationship you want whatever you want to call it. But you want the federal government to call it “marriage.” THAT is your Trojan horse.
@Gary Kukis:
Interesting, Gary. As an obviously intelligent person, whom i assume has read many biographies about the Founding Fathers, you really believe the founders were Christians in the same way you are? Are you familiar with Jefferson’s Bible? Would you advocate someone taking a scalpel to the Good Book and removing all the ‘supernatural’ aspects from it, removing Christ’s divinity? Would you consider such a person a Christian in the same way you are a Christian? Toll Booth Question: how many times is “God’ motioned in that most holy of secular documents, The Constitution?
Just so I understand what you’re saying (because I’m honestly stunned), you believe the end game of those pushing for homosexual marriage has nothing to do with loving adult relationships; it’s actually some nefarious plot for gays to have access to children, so that gay men can therefore molest them (which converts them??) and have more access to partners through the rape of their own children? And lesbians are just going along with this, what, out of solidarity, having no interest in marriage for themselves? Please elaborate, with your proof please.
TheReviewer
my my I couldn’t wait to get here, with all theses people here commenting,
I just want to answer your question, what is guilding?
answer is; I dunno, what is it?
TOM
in case you worry about the GAY PEOPLE, I can tell you, they feel more protected and well respected
by the CONSERVATIVES, so naturally, they will vote for the CONSERVATIVES,
and the BLACKS WILL ALSO VOTE FOR CONSERVATIVES, AND HALF OF THE DEMOCRATS WILL TOO VOTE CONSERVATIVES TO ESCAPE THE OTHER liberals BAD MOUTH FROM THE POST ABOVE.
Gary Kukis
this bunch of looneys where all friends of TOM, I’m here on MARCH 7 OF 2012 NOW,
and remember those gnats with TOM,now it’s clean
bye